The real argument about the next generation of Trident submarines is what do we need them for, and can we really afford them?
The proposal by the Lib-Dems and others for “nuclear deterrent lite” is seen by the critics as nuclear disarmament on the sly.
They have a point. By replacing the four Vanguard Trident subs with only two means you won’t be ready all the time, and can be caught out.
This is an age of nuclear proliferation, overtly and covertly, with currently a dozen declared and undeclared nuclear powers. Possibly there are another 18 queuing up behind them. And there are plenty of parties around ready to arm them, including Iran and North Korea.
The issue David Cameron has to confront is how to pay for the new submarines and upgraded systems.
So far the Coalition says that £25 billion over the next 25 years will have to come from the defence budget, and not from central government funds as before. That puts a tremendous strain on the overstretched funding for the forces and it must be looked at again by Mr Cameron and the Treasury.
The clincher in the argument is that the Americans want us to go ahead, as they do, with the Navy’s carrier programme. Taken together at about £50 billion they could break the UK defence programme.
The alternative is splendid isolation — albeit a disarmed, impotent and pretty incompetent isolation, to boot.
